File collapse: fix spelling and phrasing in UI text

What does this MR do?

!139210 (merged) introduced a spelling error into UI text. Let's fix that, and tighten up the language while we're here.

• Current: Generated files are collapsed by default. This behavior can be overriden via .gitattributes file if required.
• Initial proposal here: Generated files are collapsed by default. To change this behavior, edit the .gitattributes file.

Spotted from this screencap:

Related issues

• Related to Collapse generated files (!139210 - merged)
• Related to Add docs for collapsing generated files (!141452 - merged)
• Related to Add `generated?` check a la `gitattributes?` ch... (#391777 - closed)

Author's checklist

• Optional. Consider taking the GitLab Technical Writing Fundamentals course.
• Follow the:
  • Documentation process.
  • Documentation guidelines.
  • Style Guide.
• If you're adding or changing the main heading of the page (H1), ensure that the product tier badge is added.
• If you are a GitLab team member, request a review based on:
  • The documentation page's metadata.
  • The associated Technical Writer.

If you are a GitLab team member and only adding documentation, do not add any of the following labels:

• ~"frontend"
• ~"backend"
• ~"type::bug"
• ~"database"

These labels cause the MR to be added to code verification QA issues.

Reviewer's checklist

Documentation-related MRs should be reviewed by a Technical Writer for a non-blocking review, based on Documentation Guidelines and the Style Guide.

If you aren't sure which tech writer to ask, use roulette or ask in the #docs Slack channel.

• If the content requires it, ensure the information is reviewed by a subject matter expert.
• Technical writer review items:
  • Ensure docs metadata is present and up-to-date.
  • Ensure the appropriate labels are added to this MR.
  • Ensure a release milestone is set.
  • If relevant to this MR, ensure content topic type principles are in use, including:
    • The headings should be something you'd do a Google search for. Instead of Default behavior, say something like Default behavior when you close an issue.
    • The headings (other than the page title) should be active. Instead of Configuring GDK, say something like Configure GDK.
    • Any task steps should be written as a numbered list.
    • If the content still needs to be edited for topic types, you can create a follow-up issue with the docs-technical-debt label.
• Review by assigned maintainer, who can always request/require the reviews above. Maintainer's review can occur before or after a technical writer review.

changed milestone to %16.8

added Deliverable Technical Writing UI text backend devopscreate docsimprovement documentation featureenhancement groupcode review maintenancerefactor sectiondev tw-weight3 typefeature workflowcomplete + 1 deleted label

assigned to @aqualls

removed maintenancerefactor label

changed the description

added frontend label

	1 Warning
⚠	featureaddition and featureenhancement merge requests normally have a documentation change. Consider adding a documentation update or confirming the documentation plan with the Technical Writer counterpart. For more information, see: The Handbook page on merge request types. The definition of done documentation.

	1 Message
📖	CHANGELOG missing: If this merge request needs a changelog entry, add the Changelog trailer to the commit message you want to add to the changelog. If this merge request doesn't need a CHANGELOG entry, feel free to ignore this message.

Reviewer roulette

Changes that require review have been detected!

Please refer to the table below for assigning reviewers and maintainers suggested by Danger in the specified category:

Category	Reviewer	Maintainer
frontend	@aalakkad (UTC+3, 11 hours ahead of author)	@deepika.guliani (UTC+5.5, 13.5 hours ahead of author)

Please check reviewer's status!

• Reviewer is available!
• Reviewer is unavailable!

Feel free to override these selections if you think someone else would be better-suited or use the GitLab Review Workload Dashboard to find other available reviewers.

To read more on how to use the reviewer roulette, please take a look at the Engineering workflow and code review guidelines. Please consider assigning a reviewer or maintainer who is a domain expert in the area of the merge request.

Once you've decided who will review this merge request, assign them as a reviewer! Danger does not automatically notify them for you.

If needed, you can retry the 🔁 danger-review job that generated this comment.

Generated by 🚫 Danger

I'd like to link out to the docs, but whatever link we create will change after the feature flag is taken down, so I'll stick to just editing the text.

Sending to @msedlakjakubowski for tone + style review, and @iamphill for FE review / merge.

requested review from @msedlakjakubowski and @iamphill

mentioned in merge request !139210 (merged)

Bundle size analysis [beta]

This compares changes in bundle size for entry points between the commits 032192b2 and 2195dd62

✨ Special assets

Entrypoint / Name	Size before	Size after	Diff	Diff in percent
average	4.16 MB	4.16 MB	-	0.0 %
mainChunk	3.12 MB	3.12 MB	-	0.0 %

---

Note: We do not have exact data for 032192b2. So we have used data from: ce3fef53.
The intended commit has no webpack pipeline, so we chose the last commit with one before it.

Please look at the full report for more details

---

Read more about how this report works.

Generated by 🚫 Danger

E2E Test Result Summary

allure-report-publisher generated test report!

e2e-test-on-gdk: ✅ test report for 2195dd62

expand test summary

+------------------------------------------------------------------+
|                          suites summary                          |
+-------------+--------+--------+---------+-------+-------+--------+
|             | passed | failed | skipped | flaky | total | result |
+-------------+--------+--------+---------+-------+-------+--------+
| Plan        | 51     | 0      | 3       | 0     | 54    | ✅     |
| Monitor     | 7      | 0      | 0       | 0     | 7     | ✅     |
| Package     | 15     | 0      | 1       | 0     | 16    | ✅     |
| Verify      | 29     | 0      | 2       | 0     | 31    | ✅     |
| Data Stores | 20     | 0      | 3       | 0     | 23    | ✅     |
| Govern      | 64     | 0      | 3       | 0     | 67    | ✅     |
| Create      | 45     | 0      | 17      | 0     | 62    | ✅     |
| Analytics   | 2      | 0      | 0       | 0     | 2     | ✅     |
| Release     | 5      | 0      | 0       | 0     | 5     | ✅     |
| Manage      | 0      | 0      | 1       | 0     | 1     | ➖     |
+-------------+--------+--------+---------+-------+-------+--------+
| Total       | 238    | 0      | 30      | 0     | 268   | ✅     |
+-------------+--------+--------+---------+-------+-------+--------+

e2e-review-qa: ✅ test report for 2195dd62

expand test summary

+------------------------------------------------------------------+
|                          suites summary                          |
+-------------+--------+--------+---------+-------+-------+--------+
|             | passed | failed | skipped | flaky | total | result |
+-------------+--------+--------+---------+-------+-------+--------+
| Create      | 8      | 0      | 3       | 1     | 11    | ✅     |
| Plan        | 3      | 0      | 1       | 0     | 4     | ✅     |
| Monitor     | 4      | 0      | 0       | 0     | 4     | ✅     |
| Package     | 0      | 0      | 1       | 0     | 1     | ➖     |
| Data Stores | 2      | 0      | 0       | 0     | 2     | ✅     |
| Govern      | 3      | 0      | 0       | 0     | 3     | ✅     |
+-------------+--------+--------+---------+-------+-------+--------+
| Total       | 20     | 0      | 5       | 1     | 25    | ✅     |
+-------------+--------+--------+---------+-------+-------+--------+

e2e-package-and-test: ❌ test report for 2195dd62

expand test summary

+------------------------------------------------------------------+
|                          suites summary                          |
+-------------+--------+--------+---------+-------+-------+--------+
|             | passed | failed | skipped | flaky | total | result |
+-------------+--------+--------+---------+-------+-------+--------+
| Create      | 505    | 1      | 102     | 8     | 608   | ❌     |
| Plan        | 8      | 0      | 0       | 0     | 8     | ✅     |
| Data Stores | 4      | 0      | 0       | 0     | 4     | ✅     |
| Package     | 0      | 0      | 2       | 0     | 2     | ➖     |
| Govern      | 6      | 0      | 0       | 0     | 6     | ✅     |
| Monitor     | 8      | 0      | 0       | 0     | 8     | ✅     |
+-------------+--------+--------+---------+-------+-------+--------+
| Total       | 531    | 1      | 104     | 8     | 636   | ❌     |
+-------------+--------+--------+---------+-------+-------+--------+

added 1 commit

• 2195dd62 - Make string in test match the UI string

Compare with previous version

Pushed !141555 (2195dd62) to make a test match the string. Here's hoping I got it right.

Resolve this thread if the pipeline is green.

approved this merge request

👋 @iamphill, thanks for approving this merge request.

This is the first time the merge request has been approved. To ensure we don't only run predictive pipelines, and we don't break master, a new pipeline will be started shortly.

Please wait for the pipeline to start before resolving this discussion and set auto-merge for the new pipeline. See merging a merge request for more details.

added pipeline:mr-approved label

approved this merge request

added maintenancerefactor typemaintenance workflowin review labels and removed Deliverable documentation typefeature workflowcomplete labels

removed review request for @msedlakjakubowski

removed featureenhancement label

removed pipeline:mr-approved label

changed milestone to %16.9

added missed:16.8 label

mentioned in issue #438727 (closed)

@aqualls Can we add a link to the docs as part of this change as well?

added 1 commit

• bf62c239 - Updated generated file text to include code tag

Compare with previous version

changed the description

requested review from @deepika.guliani

Reviewer roulette

Changes that require review have been detected!

Please refer to the table below for assigning reviewers and maintainers suggested by Danger in the specified category:

Category	Reviewer	Maintainer
frontend	@thutterer (UTC+1, 9 hours ahead of author)	@eduardosanz (UTC+1, 9 hours ahead of author)

Please check reviewer's status!

• Reviewer is available!
• Reviewer is unavailable!

Feel free to override these selections if you think someone else would be better-suited or use the GitLab Review Workload Dashboard to find other available reviewers.

To read more on how to use the reviewer roulette, please take a look at the Engineering workflow and code review guidelines. Please consider assigning a reviewer or maintainer who is a domain expert in the area of the merge request.

Once you've decided who will review this merge request, assign them as a reviewer! Danger does not automatically notify them for you.

If needed, you can retry the 🔁 danger-review job that generated this comment.

Generated by 🚫 Danger

Bundle size analysis [beta]

This compares changes in bundle size for entry points between the commits 4255c415 and a323e367

✨ Special assets

Entrypoint / Name	Size before	Size after	Diff	Diff in percent
average	4.13 MB	4.13 MB	-	0.0 %
mainChunk	3.13 MB	3.13 MB	-	0.0 %

---

Please look at the full report for more details

---

Read more about how this report works.

Generated by 🚫 Danger

approved this merge request

The changes look good to me 🙂 Approving 🚀

Just one open thread and we are good to go 💃

added 1 commit

• c675c290 - Added learn more link to generated diff alert text

Compare with previous version

revoked approvals from @deepika.guliani by pushing to the branch

approved this merge request

resolved all threads

@iamphill Hey 👋 Can you please have a look at the failing tests ? They look related

added 1 commit

• a323e367 - Added learn more link to generated diff alert text

Compare with previous version

revoked approvals from @deepika.guliani by pushing to the branch

requested review from @deepika.guliani

unapproved this merge request

Thank you for working on fixing the tests @iamphill 🙇 Let us merge this 🚀

approved this merge request

enabled an automatic merge when all merge checks for a323e367 pass

merged

mentioned in commit 59c700fa

added workflowstaging-canary label and removed workflowin review label

added workflowcanary label and removed workflowstaging-canary label

added workflowstaging label and removed workflowcanary label

added workflowproduction label and removed workflowstaging label

added workflowpost-deploy-db-staging label and removed workflowproduction label

added workflowpost-deploy-db-production label and removed workflowpost-deploy-db-staging label

added releasedcandidate label